New Official French Presidential Portrait shot on film with a 1962 Rolleiflex TLR

[dpurdy]

Dead Link Removed

There is something odd going on here. In the photo of the photographer working you can see his camera is clearly aiming up at the President and the buildings would in the distance should have converging lines like any building you aim your camera up at. Instead the lines of the building almost seem to be widening at top as if the photographer was looking down at them. And the enlarged head of the President is illogical as well.
What I am guessing happened is that the film was scanned and then the perspective for the building corrected in photoshop, which also enlarged the head of the Pres.
Dennis

 

[blansky]

I tend to think Depardon is a good photographer, not sure this is his best work, but what I like in his work iis more the sense of "continuity" than the "greatest hits" he produces. His work about rural France is something I love. I really like "La terre des paysans" (could be translated to "farmers' land"). The fact that he was born in a farm and his parents were farmers shows in the images.

Look here

Finally, I'd say that what I prefer about the image is that it is shot on an "obsolete" media with an "obsolete" camera...

Interestingly in his other work, he didn't blow out the backgrounds by shooting at the wrong time of day.

 

[moose10101]

If this is "showing the way", film users have one foot on the banana peel.

 

[blansky]

I'd rather have my official portrait taken by Depardon than Leibovitz. Her portrait of Queen Elizabeth is ghastly: http://obamapacman.com/2010/01/annie-leibovitzs-mac-has-seen-a-certain-golfer-topless/annie-leibovitz-queen-elizabeth-ii-official-portrait/

This wasn't the official portrait but in fact recorded early one morning after the Queen had a spat with one of Lady Di's relatives.

This is merely the "Pistols at Dawn" picture.

Luckily no one was hurt although the Queen was shot in the head, but since she's been dead for 25 years no one was the wiser.

HA, Prince Charles, still no crown.

 

[Diapositivo]

Dead Link Removed

There is something odd going on here. In the photo of the photographer working you can see his camera is clearly aiming up at the President and the buildings would in the distance should have converging lines like any building you aim your camera up at. Instead the lines of the building almost seem to be widening at top as if the photographer was looking down at them. And the enlarged head of the President is illogical as well.
What I am guessing happened is that the film was scanned and then the perspective for the building corrected in photoshop, which also enlarged the head of the Pres.
Dennis

Actually I have the impression the lens is probably slightly wide angular, the camera is aimed slightly downward, which makes the head of the President so unfortunately prominent. Buildings are not supposed to cut a head in two, but this is no normal building, and no normal head, so why should the photograph be normal?

Besides, remember that during the electoral campaign this candidate promised to renegotiate all the rules about composition, which were unfairly dictated by the Germans profiting from the fact that they made the camera and the lens.

You can actually see a subtle political message there: the photographer "of the peasant" (very worker-minded, well done, good shot) instead of the photographer of the celebrities, the portrait like your aunt would have made it (power to the people!), the tailor who was working as a milkman until election day, it all says "make no mistake, I'm not your usual President working for the bourgeois and the banks".

He's not holding a black child in his arms only because it's an official shot.

Fabrizio

Yes my politically incorrect idea is that he's a bloody demagogue. And I have all the right to express my opinion because he's a "cousin" after all

 

[hdeyong]

I'm not surprised. My wife and I live in France about 3/4 of the year. The interest in analogue photography is much bigger in Europe and the UK than in North America. France and England each have several large vendors of films, paper, chemicals and equipment. The photo magazine I read every month always includes some analogue info and has an extra issue every year dedicated to black and white.
It just seems to be more of an 'arts' mentality. At any given time, there are dozens of photo exhibits going on in Paris and London. To find even one or two on the go in Toronto is becoming a rarity.
I have people in Canada and the US look at me like I'm from another planet when they find out I'm shooting film, in Europe, they don't give it a second thought.

 

[narsuitus]

Nice snap shot!

 

[Jojje]

Not bad.
In Finland we have a new president as well. However, the so-called official photograph of him was widely criticised. Photoshopping is so evident, have a look:
http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2012041615459656_uu.shtml

 

[SuzanneR]

Three threads merged...

 

[batwister]

Looks like it could be part of a college student's typology project - just another guy, centrally composed. "But Mr. President, look at that BOKEH!!!"

 

[Diapositivo]

Not bad.
In Finland we have a new president as well. However, the so-called official photograph of him was widely criticised. Photoshopping is so evident, have a look:
http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2012041615459656_uu.shtml

Mmmhh, the pin-ups on my calendars are photoshopped in a much less evident way...

Have a look at this other one:

http://www.quirinale.it/elementi/Continua.aspx?tipo=Foto&key=145

They don't even say who is the photographer, the picture seems to me well executed, not evidently retouched and, judging from the artifacts, it should be a scan from a print (?). He was elected in 2006. Next one is elected next year. I hope the official portrait it's taken with film, and not evidently retouched.

Imagine that, a conventional portrait, made by a conventional photographer. How petit-bourgeois! (And the guy is even a former Communist!).

Fabrizio

His lips have a visible make up, I guess.

 

[Lionel1972]

Thanks for merging the threads Suzanne.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Je pense que si Annie Leibovitz obtenu le concert que nous serions vraiment obtenir ce que WOW! facteur qui brille à travers. La photo comme il est apparaît comme une déclaration valable pour le cinéma, mais pas par n'importe quel tronçon de compétence technique, qui je pense est assez pauvre.

 

[zsas]

Je pense que si Annie Leibovitz obtenu le concert que nous serions vraiment obtenir ce que WOW! facteur qui brille à travers. La photo comme il est apparaît comme une déclaration valable pour le cinéma, mais pas par n'importe quel tronçon de compétence technique, qui je pense est assez pauvre.

Annie would have made it be too theatrical in my view whereas Depardon photographed this street per se. The more I think about this photograph, the more I begin to like it. Hollande is shown as a part of the government, not the government (ie at a desk governing), something subtle, different, brilliant here....

Some photos of the setup...

http://www.lense.fr/2012/06/04/francois-hollande-le-portrait-officiel-par-raymond-depardon/

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Actually I have the impression the lens is probably slightly wide angular, the camera is aimed slightly downward, which makes the head of the President so unfortunately prominent. Buildings are not supposed to cut a head in two, but this is no normal building, and no normal head, so why should the photograph be normal?

Besides, remember that during the electoral campaign this candidate promised to renegotiate all the rules about composition, which were unfairly dictated by the Germans profiting from the fact that they made the camera and the lens.

You can actually see a subtle political message there: the photographer "of the peasant" (very worker-minded, well done, good shot) instead of the photographer of the celebrities, the portrait like your aunt would have made it (power to the people!), the tailor who was working as a milkman until election day, it all says "make no mistake, I'm not your usual President working for the bourgeois and the banks".

He's not holding a black child in his arms only because it's an official shot.

Fabrizio

Yes my politically incorrect idea is that he's a bloody demagogue. And I have all the right to express my opinion because he's a "cousin" after all

If you tili the camera down, the head would appear smaller.

 

[semi-ambivalent]

Seems like the French are always on the cutting edge.

 

[Diapositivo]

If you tili the camera down, the head would appear smaller.

Why? The more you tilt the camera down, the more the head is "nearer" in respect of the feet.


|
|
|--------- | camera not tilted
|
|


|
|--------- | camera tilted down, head "larger"
|
|
|

 

[Simon R Galley]

Did you know the HM. Queen Elizabeth II is a film photographer ?

Well perhaps not now, but for sure pictures exist of her with a gold plated Minox and also a Leica, I also used to know the lab in London that printed her private pictures, also a small fact is that the present Queen' image is the most reproduced image in the history of the world and will probably forever remain so. Queen Victoria was also an early patron and great enthusiast for photography. I would also like to point out that we ( ILFORD ) and the borough of Ilford in Essex presented her with a gold plated ( probably a very thin coating ) ILFORD Advocat Camera on her accession, its probably buried somewhere in the royal archives.......anyway, I have just come from a long weekend ( an extra bank holiday ) thanks to the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, and a splendid time I had as well, and it was nice that the British weather was so kind as well.... well actually it was'nt... it was more like February. Hey Ho.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

The Queen has been photographed by some of the greats, but Cecil Beatons images are amazing and theatrical but as always Karsch ( of Ottawa ) is the best ( in my humble opinion ) as always, if you come to London, walk past the National Gallery and go around the corner to the National Portrait gallery....the best art gallery in England, bar none, and if you go now...rather a lot of pictures of the Queen.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Why? The more you tilt the camera down, the more the head is "nearer" in respect of the feet.


|
|
|--------- | camera not tilted
|
|


|
|--------- | camera tilted down, head "larger"
|
|
|

It's called convergence. Look at buildings, or other upright structures. When you tilt camera backwards, it's as though they 'spread out', and if you tilt forward the peaks of the buildings lean in on each other. Why should it be any different with the president's head?

Edit: I think I have the concept stuck in my head wrong... Sorry to mislead anyone. It's obviously the other way around, so technically pointing the camera up is when buildings and things become distorted and 'lean in' on each other, so if the camera man was pointing the camera from above and down at the president, his head should in fact look smaller.

2nd Edit: everything from first edit, except the end - ...his head should in fact look larger
Not even two cups of coffee helped today.

 

[Steve Smith]

and it was nice that the British weather was so kind as well.... well actually it was'nt... it was more like February.

It was nice down here!


Steve.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Steve,

The pageant should have been on the Solent.....not the Thames! It was parky up t'north...and my bunting seemed to lack any structural integrity....!

Kind Regards

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[dpurdy]

It's called convergence. Look at buildings, or other upright structures. When you tilt camera backwards, it's as though they 'spread out', and if you tilt forward the peaks of the buildings lean in on each other. Why should it be any different with the president's head?

Edit: I think I have the concept stuck in my head wrong... Sorry to mislead anyone. It's obviously the other way around, so technically pointing the camera up is when buildings and things become distorted and 'lean in' on each other, so if the camera man was pointing the camera from above and down at the president, his head should in fact look smaller.

Exactly and clearly in the photo of the photographer working you can see he is tilting the camera up. He is below the level of the Presidents head so his head is above the level of the building. The Pres head should be smaller not larger and the buildings should be getting smaller at top as well. they aren't so my opinion is that this was fixed in photoshop.
Dennis

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

They used a digital SLR as well.

Magnum Link

 

[Diapositivo]

[...] so if the camera man was pointing the camera from above and down at the president, his head should in fact look smaller.

If the camera man was pointing the camera from above and down at the president, his head should in fact look larger. The head is nearer = larger. The wide angle amplifies the effect. It's like the "big nose" effect in a portrait taken with a wide angle. Whatever is nearer than the rest, appears larger than the rest.

You have convergence toward a vanishing point "somewhere up" when you point your camera upward. You have convergence toward a vanishing point "somewhere down" when you point the camera downward. If your camera is pointed "below the horizon", buildings appear to have an "inverted pyramid" shape, not a "pyramid" shape, to exaggerate for clarity.

In the case of this portrait, my impression is that the camera is pointing slightly downward. That both makes the head of the president slightly "larger" and makes the buildings show the slight "divergence" of the parallel lines (because they do converge, but they converge the opposite way in respect of what they normally do when we take pictures of buildings pointing the camera upward).

Fabrizio

PS To be clearer: the camera is a the same level of the President's head. The head is not at half height of the frame, but is in the upper half of the frame. The line dividing the frame in two passes let's say at the stern of the subject. But the camera is at his head heights, and it points downward. The head is the nearest part of the subject. The belly is further and looks "further" than natural, as if we were looking at his upper button from above. We are looking at his upper button from above. We have the impression we are looking at him from exactly the height of his nose, or mouth. The camera is (very slightly) pointing downward IMO.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Of course you're right, Fabrizio. I royally screwed up the convergence and thought about it backwards. Not even in my edit above did I get it right. Sorry to pick on you when it was I who got it wrong. Apologies.

It is strange that there is such a perceived distortion of his body size compared to his head, while the background isn't.

If the camera man was pointing the camera from above and down at the president, his head should in fact look larger. The head is nearer = larger. The wide angle amplifies the effect. It's like the "big nose" effect in a portrait taken with a wide angle. Whatever is nearer than the rest, appears larger than the rest.

You have convergence toward a vanishing point "somewhere up" when you point your camera upward. You have convergence toward a vanishing point "somewhere down" when you point the camera downward. If your camera is pointed "below the horizon", buildings appear to have an "inverted pyramid" shape, not a "pyramid" shape, to exaggerate for clarity.

In the case of this portrait, my impression is that the camera is pointing slightly downward. That both makes the head of the president slightly "larger" and makes the buildings show the slight "divergence" of the parallel lines (because they do converge, but they converge the opposite way in respect of what they normally do when we take pictures of buildings pointing the camera upward).

Fabrizio